According to this CNN/Money report, it would appear that Wall Street has a new favorite candidate in 2012 after candidate Barack Obama, back in 2008, raised more money from the financial services industry than any other candidate in history.
New boss, same as the old boss … and the ones before that.
Maybe we’ll get a good third party candidate this year…
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
It will be interesting to see how this chart changes once the general election is in full swing. After all, there is no Democratic primary so there would be little reason to fund Obama right now. Whereas Romney is fighting for the nomination and therefore I would expect him to receive more money to help him win that nomination.
Maybe we’ll get a good third party candidate – now that Trump has endorsed Romney, that means he’s out of the picture, so it won’t be a carnival atmosphere.
Let’s try to be fair about this.
1. DCX2 makes a valid point. With no primary fight Obama may not be getting his share of the bribe money yet.
2. You also are trying to compare the Republican front-runner since the very beginning with 3 arguably marginal candidates, one of whom was considered dead-in-the-water this summer and almost never got started, another who until a month ago mustered about 3% of the vote, and Ron Paul, who is not exactly Wall Street friendly.
Except for Paul, no candidate of either party is substantially different in how they treat Wall Street. Romney isn’t necessarily a “favorite”, they simply like to back winners, and he’s currently the smart investment.
3. This is money donated to the campaign, which is limited by law. What about PAC money? It could be a different picture there. I’m sure that’s happened before.
4. I’ve read reports Obama may spend $1B total. If Romney matched that that would mean “wall street” donated a whopping 1.2% of his campaign spending.
5. How do other industries compare? Why no mention of labor union contributions? Lawyers? What about government workers? Agriculture? Small business(major employers of immigrant labor)? My guess is they’ll all exceed “Wall Street” contributions. Yet they’re not villified for it?
6. The implication seems to be Romney is somehow bad because he’s received more. If Wall Street money is “bad”, isn’t taking ANY wrong? They’re all taking these contributions. So is Ron Paul only 1/36th as evil?
7. How do Romney’s total contributions compare to the others? If he has more money total, shouldn’t the Wall Street portion also be higher?
I could probably go on, but you get the point. What makes for a clever bite sized graphic easily digestible at a glance doesn’t always convey the real picture.
Voting Ron Paul, btw.